The Decline of the Sabbath

Another point to be left up to the unbiased objective reader --

Romans 14 - facts to be noted --

a- Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned in Rom 14,
b -NEITHER practice regarding days is said to be strong OR weak in Romans 14
c - NO JEW -vs- GENTILE discussion appears in the text
d - IF one wants to eisegetically inject the Seventh-day Sabbath into Romans 14:
n THEN we still find that it is given without qualification in the text.
n It is not listed in the text as a Jew or GENTILE issue (all had scripture)
n NOT identified in Rom 14 as a WEAK vs STRONG practice

 

And neither is any "list" of annual days or pilgrimmage days. If you say "they knew about it from reading the Law", then they would read about the weekly sabbath as well.
So when we read "all days" with NO QUALIFIER listed anywhere in THIS text, the only thing we can assume is it is all days, generally, in comparison. So all days are esteemed one way or another. Some are esteemed above the others by being "observed". There is no reason to make this simple instruction so complicated.

What are you talking about now? Is this another red herring simply to obfuscate the issue? The issue is about days, whichever ones, and whoever keeps them or not keeps them; not about Jews vs. Gentiles, which I never mentioned.

 

I am hoping that you find something there to agree with

 

As for the example that shows BOTH the case of esteeming ONE day in the Biblical List of annual holy days (Lev 23) ABOVE the other days in that list -- vs -- esteeming ALL the days in that list to be just as sacred and obsering them all --

I don't see how this helps your case at all since you have been trying to argue for "esteem to be nothing" as the meaning for esteem in that case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BR:

"b -NEITHER practice regarding days is said to be strong OR weak in Romans 14"

GE:

Take out the non-canonic phrase, "he who does not observe the day to the Lord does not observe it", and you get that in fact the 'strong' were those who regarded days and, drank wine. As simple as that.

 

BR:

"No reputable Bible commentary takes the context for "Krino" the term for "REGARD" "Esteem" in Rom 14 as meaning "DISREGARDS" in the way you have speculated. Your twist on this is "one man regards one day ABOVE another while another DISREGARDS all the days" in the list."

GE:

You are quite right Bob! No need though for 'reputable Bible commentaries'. The Scriptures as this one Ro14, is plain and authoritative enough. I thought EricB would have agreed.

 

BR:

"... IF one wants to eisegetically inject the Seventh-day Sabbath into Romans 14:
n THEN we still find that it is given without qualification in the text.
n It is not listed in the text as a Jew or GENTILE issue (all had scripture)
n NOT identified in Rom 14 as a WEAK vs STRONG practice What are you talking about now? Is this another red herring simply to obfuscate the issue? The issue is about days, whichever ones, and whoever keeps them or not keeps them;"

GE:

A good statement, unecessarily weakened by your reference to what actually does not exist in Ro14, namely, "whoever ... keeps them not". I would use this then as a model answer to the anti-Sabbatharians with credit to you!

 

But may I steer this thread back to its origin, 'The decline of the Sabbath', and turn it over and destroy its very intent, by reminding every one participating, that in the eyes of God no 'decline' of the Sabbath in whatever way, could incur, seeing "God concerning the Seventh Day (Sabbath) thus SPAKE" ... "in these last days" ... "through the Son" ... "and God the Seventh Day rested from all His works". Now that, cannot be the 'decline' of the Sabbath, but its utmost elevation and honouring by none less than God Himself, in the Son, through the Son, and by the Son, since God NEVER, 'rested', BUT, in the Son and through the Son and by the Son "in Whom (He) is well pleased".

And the acme of this dignifying of the Day of the Sabbath - which is a dignifying by the very fact of its being "the Sabbath of the Lord your God" - the acme of it, consists in that God - quoting Matthew 28:1 literally - "In the Sabbath's fulness of daylight being", "by the EXCEEDING greatness of His power which He WORKED : WHEN : He RAISED Christ from the dead".

Do not speak at all of a 'decline of the Sabbath' - it is defamation of the character of God.

 

You're just going around n circles with this "esteem to be nothing" business. Esteem is neutral, so it CAN refer to what you call "nothing", which is really simply "average" in comparison with the "higher' esteemed days in this case.

Just because you think "esteem" muse mean some HIGH "value" doesn't give you the license to stick the annual days and pilgrimmages in there, when they are not mentioned anywhere in the context. Even if you were right, the "lost of days from the Law" would include ALL of them, not just the annual ones, and it does not even tell us WHICH were esteemed "over" the others. Your attempt to fill in the blanks with annual days and pilgrimmages ONLY is totally without any basis.

 

Surprisingly - we seem to have found something to agree on -:applause:

 

#1. I am arguing that the USE in Romans 14 SHOWS that what is "esteemed" is being "OBSERVED". I simply expose the weakness in your argument by leaving this glaringly obvious point up to the objective unbiased reader to conclude.

Your heels-dug-in tactic here in the "deny-all-points-at-any-cost" format is fine for the biased subjective approach that you are using. I don't claim to budge you from that position.

I cerntainly would think that you would at least "hope" some unbiased reader might be willing to bend the point as far as you have. We will see.

Many Bible commentaries (With a Pro-Sunday and Anti-Sabbath bias) come to Rom 14 and admit that the Lev 16 ANNUAL Holy Days were the BIBLICAL CONTEXT for Christians that chose to ESTEEM and OBSERVE some of those days OVER the others.

I have already pointed that out in triplicate.

My objectivity in showing the fact that even scholars on YOUR SIDE of the fence admit to this glaringly obvious point - has yet to be matched in any of your responses so far. You just keep circling back to the fact that you yourself refuse to budge.

I admit - you do refuse to budge. That is a given.

in Christ,

Bob

 

All the "use" there shows is that "esteem" is NEUTRAL. It is comparing one day to another. To "esteem" one ABOVE another, not to "observe" one ABOVE another, which really makes no sense, because "observing" is not a comparison. Observing means you have already esteemed the day highly compared to the other.

The only other reader who sees it your way is GE, and even he disputes you on some points. So who are these "objective readers" you keep talking about who agree with you. All the others who participated earlier said the same things I'm saying. Romans 14 is telling us not to judge one another over observance of days. You refuse to obey what the passage tells us. So do you think YOU are the "objective" one? Your whole doctrine and sectarian modus operandi is at stake, not mine, because this is not the only passage that supports our position. (Even though you have similarly ridiculous reinterpretations and rewordings of every other passage as well). So you have reason to be very subjective!

Who's diggin in their heels? Every single passage we debate, you do the same exact thing. You reinterpret the clear meaning to get around the scripture's instruction to YOU about judging others over days and other points of the OC. Then you take other passages as proof-texts, many of them not saying what you claim they're saying, or they don't even deal with the present. When all of that fails to work, then you just cite the same passage or commentary over and over, and then add the colors and stuff, as if it really says what you want it to say just because you say so.

I can read this passage, and it means like what it appears to say. You have to explain it away; that "days" really means" annual days", and that "esteem" is "observe", and that the ones "esteemed above" were pilgrimmages for males only. Where do you get all of that from? You try to cite commentaries (next), but the final authority is the scripture itself...

...and then the utter irony is that these commentaries do not even say what you claim they say! You cited all of them, but they were discussing other passages such as Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy. NOT ONE of them mentioned Romans 14, or in any way linked it to those passages on the annual days and pilgrimmages. NOT ONE!!!
So your whole grand claim to prove your point because "Sunday keeping scholars agree" with you is shown to be a total farce. You have just heaped together scraps of arguments that do not even fit together. Not one scriptural proof, and none of the commentaries you cited. You or your group just made that up as a "quick fix" to get out of being n violation of the scripture. Why should I "budge" off of the solid foundation of the scripture's actual words, and into your shifting sand rationalizations?
Once again, all you have to do is stop trying to rewrite the passage, and just do what it says! But no; you have too much at stake. Your whole doctrine and reason of being of your group (you are the most obedient Christians over everyone else, keeping the "one forgotten command", etc) would fall if you admitted what the passages says. So again; who's "digging in their heels"?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
#1. I am arguing that the USE in Romans 14 SHOWS that what is "esteemed" is being "OBSERVED".

Fine - let us see if the objective unbiased reader is as befuddled on that point as you claim they would be Eric such that they would read the 5-6 sequences above and be confused as to whether that judgment of esteem was NOT resulting in the "Observance" that we SEE it motivating in vs 6.

I suppose there might be such a person -- and THEN you would actually have a point with at least that ONE.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Why do you keep pretending not to follow the discussion?

TWO points were shown from anti-Sabbath pro-sunday commentaries.

#1. That the CONTEXT in Romans 14 DOES apply to the Lev 16 list of Holy Days.

#2. That the LAW only demanded a mandatory observance of THREE of those annual Holy Days -- the others were optional.

you keep going to the quotes about the SECOND point and pretending that these are the quotes that showed the FIRST point.

Why do you resort to such antics?

in Christ,

Bob

 

GE:

Why is it you find it impossible to agree on the post before this? (148?)

 

BR:

"Why do you keep pretending not to follow the discussion?
TWO points were shown from anti-Sabbath pro-sunday commentaries.
#1. That the CONTEXT in Romans 14 DOES apply to the Lev 16 list of Holy Days.
#2. That the LAW only demanded a mandatory observance of THREE of those annual Holy Days -- the others were optional.
You keep going to the quotes about the SECOND point and pretending that these are the quotes that showed the FIRST point.
Why do you resort to such antics?
in Christ,
Bob"

GE:

I think it is because Eric B's standpoint is the early Church regarded no days whatsoever, as were the Sabbath or any other 'special days' a non-entity. I think that's what he thinks.

 

Now if it is decided Eric B is wrong, then Romans 14 must prove and leave no doubt the early (Apostolic) Church 'kept holy', 'days' - 'days' of all kinds Old Testament, including the Seventh Day Sabbath although it isn't mention in the passage. But this can only be a deducement inevitable though it is, the fact remaining, that Paul does not deal on all or just any 'holy days' there, but specifically on the Passover, it being the only festival of 'holy days' that fits every specific indicated in Romans 14.

In other words, EricB and his thesis stand or fall with Romans 14; this one text is pivotal for him.

 

Now, you're not even reading everything I said (which answers your "answer"), but instead taking only little snippets of what I say to keep flogging with your repeated jargon.
Why don't you deal with the NEXT sentence:

"It is comparing one day to another. To "esteem" one ABOVE another, not to 'observe' one ABOVE another, which really makes no sense, because 'observing' is not a comparison. Observing means you have already esteemed the day highly compared to the other." ?

Now you keep spouting this empty hypothesis about some "objective reader" who would see it your way. But where are all of these readers? What a way to claim to be right. "Well, I can't prove my point with scripture, but 'objective readers' would see it".

1) The commentaries you gave DO NOT EVEN MENTION ROM.14! Again, you do not even address all that I have said, as this (your "first point") is just what I emphasized last night! You gave one commentary on the passage in Exudus, another on Leviticus, and another on Deuteronony.
NOT ONE of them said "And these are the 'days' Romans 14 is reffering to". You gave no commentary on Rom. 14 that said that the days were annual pilgrimmages only, or that esteem = observe.
NOTHING!
What, do you think everyone here is stupid, to fall for that? To just take your word for it, and not look for themselves and SEE that the scripture or the commentaries do not actually say what you claim they say? You talk about "objective readers", but most are probably not even bothering to read this discussion, because it's totally asinine!

2) and you just continue to rewrite the scripture, when it tells us that every person had to observe all seven annual days as "sabbaths", in addition to the three with the pilgrimmages?
Don't you realize what you're saying? So on Nisan 14th, everyone could SKIP the Passover, and the males only have to go to Jerusalem the following week. The Passover Sacrifice and Seder is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the pilgrimmage! They could SKIP the Day of Atonement; just as long as the males go Jerusalem on the feast of Tabernacles. The Day of Atonement is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the Tabernacles pilgrimmage.

So you have basically turned the entire Jewish calendar as instructed by the Law on its ear! All simply so you could escape the instruction of Romans 14! Why don't you just go on and tear the confounded passage out of the Bible? That would be much easier!

 

It's NOT that they observed NO days, but that they were optional; just like the diet.

Even if I was wrong, it wouldn't prove that the Early Church observed days. Paul is addressing practical conflicts where people were judging others over dong things differently. If he's telling people not to judge over days, then whether he mentions annual days, or pilgrimmages, or not, the point is not to judge each other over Days, which were assigned to the Old Covenant Israel, when we are all in Christ now, and "none of us lives unto himself or does unto himself...we are the Lord's...we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (v.7-10)
If you insist that proves the Church observed MANDATORY days, then the pilgrimmages were mandatory, and are STILL mandatory! But neither of you are arguing for that! There is no way you can leave the weekly sabbath out by claiming "it was refferring to annual days with mandatory pilgrimmages only", but then say "it proves there were still mandatory days, but only the weekl day is madatory, not the annual ones".

But again, the Passover is not even mentioned in this passage! I don't see how you can just by fiat add something that is not there!

No it is not; it is pivotal for Bob, because he is the one trying to judge others over a day, and this one passage by itself floors his whole church's purpose of coming into existence. Don't you see what he's doing and the lengths he's going to protect his position? He's claiming over half of the Biblical feasts were "optional", just to fit his theory into this passage! I even gave him the original commands in Lev. and it clearly said that ALL SEVEN were "holy convocations" and "sabbaths" that had to be OBSERVED by all! But no matter; he brushes it aside, and goes back to his commentaries that don't even say what he is saying! An I doing anything like that to any text? All I'm doing is taking it at what it says, and he is the one who keeps saying "no, that doesn't mean that, it means this", and what he says is not even mentioned there!
But there are many other passages that we stand on as well, and Bob tries just as hard to rewrite and reinterpret them to justify his judgment of others. But this one is one of the clearest. It is too much for his doctrinal comfort zone to just do what it says. I once fell into that trap. "If the day is optional, and I can't judge others over it, then man; I can't go preaching how everyone else is wrong for not keeping it anymore. That's no fun! What's the point of it then? EGW and her "visions" about how this would become the Mark of the Beast were wrong. All of her writings, the premise of the founding of our church, and the entire Church's writings; all for naught!" He has a lot to lose, not me. He doesn't even believe that those who do not keep the sabbath will be judged over it, "until the issue is made clear" at the endtime "3rd Angel's message", as EGW said. (Which right there is an admission that it is not "clearly taught" in the NT!) So none of us have anything to lose right now, like he does.

 

Gerhard EbersoehnNow if it is decided Eric B is wrong, then Romans 14 must prove and leave no doubt the early (Apostolic) Church 'kept holy', 'days' - 'days' of all kinds Old Testament, including the Seventh Day Sabbath although it isn't mention in the passage.

#1. Paul says nothing about "Old Covenant" or "Just assigned to Israel" in Rom 14. Your argument that this is the "major point" of the chapter has the "major point not mentioned even ONCE".

#2. You admit that these ARE Biblical days after trying to imagine that they had nothing to do with what the Christian church was reading in scripture regarding a list of days to be OBSERVED and ESTEEMED.

#3. The LIST given in the SCRIPTURES that the NT saints were reading is found in Lev 16. Those annual holy days included the THREE mandatory days as pointed out EVEN by the pro-sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries quoted on this thread.

#4. The point remains as quoted by GE that this chapter SHOWS that it is THAT list of days that is being esteemed -- and OBSERVED in Rom 14 where some highly regard ALL of the days (EVERY DAY in the list) and some regard/esteem ONE ABOVE the other days in the list. IN NO case does Romans 14 address the group that ESTEEMS NO days or "DISREGARDS ALL days" in the list.

This is a point you have been trying to ignore this entire thread!

Your "If Eric is wrong" test fails to deal with these glaring facts.

in Christ,

Bob